Forum - View topic

This Week in Games: You Should Be Playing Better Fanservice Games

I definitely would have preferred a traditional sprite-based game

It's frustrating to try and talk about these games, since any negativity is often met with a knee-jerk reaction of "oh, you just don't like sexy games."

Thing is game reviewers utterly fail at farly reviewing fanservice games, treating them as devil that needs to be annihilated.

How do gamers know when a fanservice game is good or bad when people on industry automatically assume it's all garbage and actively campaign against these games?

Heidi's not, and this is the same argument we get every time a fan service anime is trashed: inclusion of heavy fan service doesn't excuse a game/anime being bad for other reasons, or from using the fan service in a dull fashion. That seemed to be the gist of her arguments.

Gaming websites don't tell them if the game is good or bad. They're telling them they should be ashamed of playing such games.

Łukasz Kawosz wrote:

Gaming websites don't tell them if the game is good or bad. They're telling them they should be ashamed of playing such games.

It's been a while since I spent much time on gaming websites; do you have any examples?

I'm not attacking her, I'm just saying why gamers are so defensive with lewd games. Gaming websites don't tell them if the game is good or bad. They're telling them they should be ashamed of playing such games.

Łukasz Kawosz wrote:

I'm not attacking her, I'm just saying why gamers are so defensive with lewd games. Gaming websites don't tell them if the game is good or bad. They're telling them they should be ashamed of playing such games.

A few years back, a reviewer from a major online publication (not a game specific one, but a more general purpose one that had a video game review column) made the argument that Dark Souls was a terrible game because no game that took over 100 hours to beat could possibly be worth it ("you could learn a new language in less time" or something). I'm sure that non-gamer audiences would look at a game like Dark Souls and think that the reviewer's argument was completely rational, but a lot of gamers (especially those who had spent hundreds and hundreds of hours playing RPGs) found it ridiculous.

At the same time, if there was someone out there who gave good ratings to every game that took over 100 hours to play, and claimed that people who gave bad ratings to games that took over 100 hours to play simply hated long games, I probably wouldn't take much stock in their opinions, even if I liked long games, too.

Point is, don't rely on the opinions of reviewers who think that the kinds of games you like to play are automatically bad, and don't rely on the opinions of reviewers who think that the kinds of games you like to play are automatically good.

I definitely would have preferred a traditional sprite-based game...

A few years back, a reviewer from a major online publication (not a game specific one, but a more general purpose one that had a video game review column) made the argument that Dark Souls was a terrible game because no game that took over 100 hours to beat could possibly be worth it ("you could learn a new language in less time" or something). I'm sure that non-gamer audiences would look at a game like Dark Souls and think that the reviewer's argument was completely rational, but a lot of gamers (especially those who had spent hundreds and hundreds of hours playing RPGs) found it ridiculous.

At the same time, if there was someone out there who gave good ratings to every game that took over 100 hours to play, and claimed that people who gave bad ratings to games that took over 100 hours to play simply hated long games, I probably wouldn't take much stock in their opinions, even if I liked long games, too.

Point is, don't rely on the opinions of reviewers who think that the kinds of games you like to play are automatically bad, and don't rely on the opinions of reviewers who think that the kinds of games you like to play are automatically good.